The Olza river in the urban cross-border landscape of Karvina, Cieszyn and Třinec. Supply and demand of urban ecosystem services . Dr. Marcin Spyra – Politechnika Opolska, Poland, European LandUse Institute Dr. Luis Inostroza - Technische Universität Dresden, Germany, European LandUse Institute
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The Olza river in the urbancross-border landscape ofKarvina, Cieszyn and
Třinec.Supply and demand ofurban ecosystem services
.
Dr. Marcin Spyra – Politechnika Opolska, Poland, European LandUse Institute
Dr. Luis Inostroza - Technische Universität Dresden, Germany, European LandUse Institute
Introduction
INTRODUCTION
WHAT? WHERE?
WHY?
ES CBR Upper Silesia
UES „Real” border
The most exceptional part
Three closest to the border cities
KARVINA, CIESZYN, TRZYNIEC&SPATIAL AXE - OLZA
• Holistic approach to ES concept• CBR under construction• Quality of life
also
• Ethics of ES• Demand of ES
What kind of indicators?
METHOD DISCUSSION
• To illustrate tradeoffs and spill over's of specific cross–border urban ecosystem services, • To highlighte UESbenefits to these three cities• To discuss the subject of cross – border management of UES in the context of integrated land use strategies
WHERE?
Why Cieszyn, Karvina and Tryniec?
Three different kind of the river „presence” in the city
150000
155000
160000
165000
170000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Inhabitants inCieszyn, Karviná and Třinec
36000
37000
38000
39000
40000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Třinec
58000
60000
62000
64000
66000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Karviná
Demographic trends of the cities
Why Cieszyn, Karvina and Tryniec?
Cross – border specificityKnippschild, R. (2011). Cross-Border Spatial Planning: Understanding, Designing and Managing Cooperation Processes in the German–Polish–Czech Borderland. European Planning Studies, 19(4), 629–645. Minghi, J. V. (1963). Boundary studies in political geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 53(3), 407–428. xPaasi, A. (2010). Regions are social constructs, but who or what “constructs” them? Agency in question. Environment and Planning A, 42(10), 2296–2301. Steiner F. (2008) The Livening Landscape, Second Edition, Island PressVan Houtum, H. (2005). The Geopolitics of Borders and Boundaries. Geopolitics, 10(4), 672–679.
THE REGION
• Is a region is a „really existingthing” or an „idea”?
• Statistical / administrativeunits (NUTS)
• Region as a construct, the endproduct of a research process
• Region is conditioned bypolitics, culture, economics,governance and powerrelations
A landscape is more than apicturesque view! (Steiner,2008)Thinking in the “landscapescale” might help to avoidsimplifications offered bydifferent political andadministrative units, since thelandscape deals with territoriesthat are not constrained inparticular administrative unit orincluded in other (Jackson,1984; Spyra, 2013a)
THE LANDSCAPE THE BORDERNatural and non-natural borders(Van Houtum, 2005)
Good borders - created naturallyby important landscape elements.Bad borders - political ones,created mostly in turbulent timesof the first half of XX century.(Minghi, 1963). Us and Others
„Hard border” hampered bydifficult history, which makesdifficult to build trust betweencooperating actors (Knippschild,2010)
Also administrative boundaries
Part of Upper Silesia between Czech Republic and Poland
Cieszyn, the Friednship Brigde above Olza river
CBL –
C R O S S – B O R D E R L A N D S C A P E O F T H E R E G I O N
For planning:
• Diversity of stakeholders
• Boundary / border issue
Ecosystem Services
• Four categories (supporting, provisioning, regulating and cultural services) are not always appropriate (Seppelt et al., 2011, 2012; Wallace, 2007)
• The status of an ecosystem service is strongly influenced by human needs and the desired level of provision for this service by the society
• Cultural ecosystem services (Kumar and Kumar, 2008; Hansen-Möller, 2009): – Related more to the observer than to ecosystem conditions– There are subjective and value-laden. – Each individual and group has different value systems and demands (MA,
2005) influenced by several factors like experience, habits, belief systems, behavioral traditions and judgment, lifestyles
Method
ASSYMETRIES
Spatial
Administrative
• Supply–demand mismatches across cross-border landscapes. Normally demands are assessed not considering where ecosystem services actually are provided -> Ecosystemservices providing areas and ecosystem services benefitting areas.
• Detailed provision patterns will bring Footprints:– Ecosystem service footprint which (closely related to the ecological footprint’s
concept; Rees, 1992) calculates the area needed to generate particular ecosystem goods and services demanded by humans in a certain area in a certain time (Burkhard et al. 2012).
• A clear distinction between ecosystem functions, services and benefits is of high relevance (de Groot et al., 2010; Haines-Young and Potschin, 2010; Burkhard et al., 2010)
• An ecosystem service is only a service, if there is a (human) benefit. Without human beneficiaries, ecosystem functions and processes are not services
• Ecosystem services’ benefits must have a direct relation to human well-being. Nutrient cycling is an ecological function, not an ecosystem service (Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007).
Objectives
• Identification of cross border tradeoffs and mismatches in the provision of UES
• The identification of spatially explicit units for ES to which specific benefits can be assigned
• Focusing on supply-demand of services across the border
• Explore 2 spatially explicit approaches: – Hexagonal grid, to measure degrees of relative concentration
– Buffers, to measure proximity (tiver) functions
• Spatial continuity function ->
percentage of i land cover in
buffer j;
• ES supply and demand in
each buffer;
Buffers to Olza river
Ko
d C
LC o
kre
ślaj
ący
typ
po
kryc
ia t
ere
nu
wys
tęp
ują
cy n
a
anal
izo
wan
ym
ob
szar
zeU
słu
gi r
egu
lują
ce
Usł
ugi
zao
pat
rują
ce
Usł
ugi
ku
ltu
row
e
Reg
ula
cja
loka
lneg
o k
limat
u
Reg
ula
cja
glo
bal
neg
o k
limat
u
Och
ron
a p
rzec
iw p
ow
od
zio
wa
Filt
racj
a w
ód
po
wie
rzch
nio
wyc
h
Reg
ula
cja
jako
ści p
ow
ietr
za
Reg
ula
cja
ero
zji
Reg
ula
cja
skła
dn
ikó
w o
dży
wcz
ych
Ocz
yszc
zan
ie w
od
y
Zap
ylan
ie
Cał
ość
Plo
ny
Zwie
rzęt
a go
spo
dar
cze
Pas
za
Po
łow
y ry
b
Ro
lnic
two
Dzi
czyz
na
dre
wn
o
Dre
wn
o o
pał
ow
e
Ener
gia
Mat
eria
ły b
ioch
emic
zne
i lek
arst
wa
Świe
ża w
od
a
Cał
ość
Rek
reac
ja i
wal
ory
est
etyc
zne
War
tość
bio
różn
oro
dn
ośc
i
Cał
ość
Tere
ny
antr
op
oge
nic
zne 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
121 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0
132 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
133 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
141 2 1 0 2 1 2 1 1 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 3 0 3
142 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5
Tere
ny
roln
e 211 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 21 1 0 1
222 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 5 19 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 1 0 0 13 5 0 5
231 1 1 1 1 0 4 0 0 0 8 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 10 3 0 3
242 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 9 2 0 2
243 3 2 1 2 1 3 0 1 0 13 3 3 2 0 0 3 3 3 2 1 0 21 2 3 5
Lasy
i
eko
syst
em
y
sem
inat
ura
lne 311 5 4 3 2 5 5 5 5 5 39 0 0 1 0 0 5 5 5 1 5 0 21 5 5 10
312 5 4 3 2 5 5 5 5 5 39 0 0 1 0 0 5 5 5 1 5 0 21 5 5 10
313 5 4 3 2 5 5 5 5 5 39 0 0 1 0 0 5 5 5 1 5 0 21 5 5 10
321 2 3 1 1 0 5 5 5 0 22 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 3 6
324 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 5 2 2 4
Ob
szar
y
po
dm
ok łe 411 2 2 4 2 0 0 4 0 0 14 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0
412 4 5 3 3 0 0 3 4 2 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 4 4 8
Ob
szar
y
wo
dn
e 511 1 0 2 1 0 0 3 3 0 10 0 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 3 0 5 12 5 5 10
512 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 5 12 5 4 9
Ko
d C
LC o
kre
ślaj
ący
typ
po
kryc
ia t
ere
nu
wys
tęp
ują
cy n
a
anal
izo
wan
ym
ob
szar
zeU
słu
gi r
egu
lują
ce
Usł
ugi
zao
pat
rują
ce
Usł
ugi
ku
ltu
row
e
Reg
ula
cja
loka
lneg
o k
limat
u
Reg
ula
cja
glo
bal
neg
o k
limat
u
Och
ron
a p
rzec
iw p
ow
od
zio
wa
Filt
racj
a w
ód
po
wie
rzch
nio
wyc
h
Reg
ula
cja
jako
ści p
ow
ietr
za
Reg
ula
cja
ero
zji
Reg
ula
cja
skła
dn
ikó
w o
dży
wcz
ych
Ocz
yszc
zan
ie w
od
y
Zap
ylan
ie
Cał
ość
Plo
ny
Zwie
rzęt
a go
spo
dar
cze
Pas
za
Po
łow
y ry
b
Ro
lnic
two
Dzi
czyz
na
dre
wn
o
Dre
wn
o o
pał
ow
e
Ener
gia
Mat
eria
ły b
ioch
emic
zne
i lek
arst
wa
Świe
ża w
od
a
Cał
ość
Rek
reac
ja i
wal
ory
est
etyc
zne
War
tość
bio
różn
oro
dn
ośc
i
Cał
ość
Tere
ny
antr
op
oge
nic
zne 111 5 3 4 5 5 1 1 1 3 28 5 5 1 5 5 5 3 2 5 5 5 47 4 2 6
112 5 3 5 5 5 1 2 2 4 32 4 4 2 4 4 4 3 3 4 5 5 42 4 3 7
121 1 5 4 5 5 1 3 3 4 31 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 52 1 1 2
122 2 4 4 1 4 3 0 0 1 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 1 7 2 0 2
124 2 3 5 2 2 4 0 3 1 22 2 2 2 2 2 1 5 2 5 1 3 27 2 1 3
131 0 0 2 4 0 4 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 2 7 0 0 0
132 2 2 0 2 3 0 0 2 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 0
133 2 0 2 0 1 2 2 2 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 2 10 4 1 5
141 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 5 4 1 5
142 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 1 0 8 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 22 3 0 3
Tere
ny
roln
e 211 2 2 2 0 1 2 3 0 3 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0
222 2 1 0 3 1 1 3 2 5 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 3 9 0 0 0
231 1 3 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 8 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 9 0 0 0
242 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 3 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 5 0 0 0
243 1 2 0 1 1 1 3 2 2 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 6 0 0 0
Lasy
i
eko
syst
em
y
sem
inat
ura
lne 311 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
312 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
313 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
321 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
324 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ob
szar
y
po
dm
ok łe 411 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
412 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ob
szar
y
wo
dn
e 511 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
512 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
ES supply index for each CLC class(Burkhard et al., 2012)
0 = no relevant capacity
1 = low relevant capacity
2 = relevant capacity
3 = medium relevant capacity
4 = high relevant capacity
5 = very high relevant capacity
ES demand index for each CLC class(Burkhard et al., 2012)
0 = no relevant demand
1 = low relevant demand
2 = relevant demand
3 = medium relevant demand
4 = high relevant demand
5 = very high relevant demand
Supply (S): the capacity of a particular area to provide a specific bundle of ecosystem services within a given time period (Burkhard et al. 2012)
Demand (D): the sum of all ecosystem services currently consumed or usedin a particular area over a given time period.
Si = ViSSi
Si – the potential of i land cover class surface to supply ES services;
Vi – area of i land cover class [ha];
SSi – (index) the potential of i land cover class to supply ES services;
Di = ViSi
Di – the demand of i land cover class surface for ES services;
Vi – area of i land cover class [ha];
DSi – (index) the demand of i land cover class for ES services;
Bi = Si-Di
Bi – ES demenad and supply budget of i land cover class surface
Possible to use both for cells and buffers and also in the larger scale… (next
slide)
Buffers to the CZ / PL border line
Trzyniec- Relative concentration
(percentage by cell)
- Overall concentration
(cell specialisation coefficient)
RS
CSIE
i
i
i
ij
ij
iV
VCS
j
ij
i
J
ij
iV
V
RS
ijV
i
ijV
J
ijV
j
ij
i
V
= area of land cover i in cell j
= total area of land covers in cell j
= area of all i land covers in all cells
= total area of all cells (the sudy area)
U denotes urban area,
A agricultural area (cropland,
agriculturally used grasslands),
F forest areas,
W water and wetland areas
B natural or semi-natural biotopes
(‘‘natural areas’’).
Cieszyn
Karwina
Discussion
Ecosystem taxonomy
Ecosystem
Functions
Nutrient cycling
Soil formation
Primary production
Supporting
Ecosystem
Services
Cultural
Regulating
Recreation
Air quality
Climate regulation
Erosion control
Water purification
Waste disposal
Cross border
values Cultural diversity
Education values
Social relations
Ecosystem
Goods
Food
Fresh water
Fuel wood
Fibber
Ecological
integrity
Metabolic
Assessments
(urban metabolism,
MFA)
Specific cross-border perspective
The methodology can be used to assess UES in other cross border
regions located in different parts of the world;
Each (?) cross border landscape can be characterized by certain
asymmetry on both sides of the border - the spatial and
administrative assymetryies;
The spatial asymmetry is evident while analyzing ES providing and
ES benefiting areas;
TAKE HOME MESSAGES
The spatial asymmetry is evident while analyzing ES providing and
ES benefiting areas -> ES connecting area – Olza river in part of the agglomeration (Syrbe & Walz, 2012). ;
Diversity of stakeholders - making the ES concept uderstandable
for the diverse stakeholders.
From „functions” into „services” in the CBL -> who has the
demand? and what kind of demand?
References
Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., & Müller, F. (2012). Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators, 21, 17–29. Ernstson, H. (2013). The social production of ecosystem services: A framework for studying environmental justice and ecological complexity in urbanized landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109(1), 7–17. Groot, D. De, & Wang, Y. (2010). The TEEB Valuation Database : overview of structure , data and results The TEEB Valuation Database : overview of structure , data and results, (December).Gómez-baggethun, E., & Barton, D. N. (2013). Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecological Economics, 86, 235–245. Jax, K., Barton, D. N., Chan, K. M. A., Groot, R. De, Doyle, U., Eser, U., … Wichmann, S. (2013). Ecosystem services and ethics.Ecological Economics, 93(May 2011), 260–268.Kaszper R, Małysz B, (2009) Poláci na Těšínsku, Český Těšín Knippschild, R. (2011). Cross-Border Spatial Planning: Understanding, Designing and Managing Cooperation Processes in the German–Polish–Czech Borderland. European Planning Studies, 19(4), 629–645. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: a framework for assessment.Minghi, J. V. (1963). Boundary studies in political geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 53(3), 407–428. xPaasi, A. (2010). Regions are social constructs, but who or what “constructs” them? Agency in question. Environment and Planning A, 42(10), 2296–2301. Syrbe, R.-U., & Walz, U. (2012). Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: Providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecological Indicators, 21, 80–88. Steiner F. (2008) The Livening Landscape, Second Edition, Island PressVan Houtum, H. (2005). The Geopolitics of Borders and Boundaries. Geopolitics, 10(4), 672–679.
Related Documents
